Oh? I was pressed for time and am just getting back to this now, but my only engaging and refuting two of your arguments as proof in your prolix polemic were not even needed, for the very fact that you must engage in such laborious attempts come up with some support from Scripture is an argument against it, for as the Holy Spirit characteristically states such exceptions to the norm even among minor character, how much more does a dogma require such, rather than your specious leaping reaching argumentative attempts. Just admit that the veracity of this dogma rests upon the premise of the unScriptural ensured veracity of Rome.
You assert such non-sense as, "I have shown above that Mary had no intention of entering into a conjugal relationship with Joseph and this is is due to her having entered into a “relationship” with the Holy Spirit." "The question will still remain to some: How does this prevent Mary and Joseph from engaging in a conjugal relationship? By law he was strictly prohibited from entering this type of relationship with Mary." "Jeremiah 3:1 “If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and then becomes the wife of another, Can she return to the first? Would not this land be wholly defiled? But you have played the prostitute with many lovers, and yet you would return to me!—oracle of the LORD.”
But Christians are already married to Christ, and beget spiritual children for Him, and are members of His flesh and of His bones, but which certainly does not prevent them from having earthly spouses! In addition, while you quote Jer. 3:1, you ignore the rest of it in which God clearly showed that He is not bound by such Laws regulating earthly relationship which you vainly presume to place Him under, for although He clearly stated that He divorced Israel, (Jer. 3:8) and she become another man's, yet He clearly called Israel to return to Him. (Jer. 3:14) What men will do to God in order to support Catholicism!
You go one to come up with this:
Had he divorced her Mary would have been subject to at least ridicule and scorn and possibly stoning, which was the punishment for adultery.
That is absurd! If anyone would be stoned it would be Mary, since if Joseph disowned the child then it would be Mary who broke the contract, while even without a marriage contract, then unless Mary could claim rape, then at worse Joseph would be forced to marry her and never put her away.
Then we have this anaillogical gem of presumption: "If Jesus is the temple then Mary must be the eastern gate since she is how He entered the world." However, this not only speaks of a future literal temple, which is not the same as that under Moses, and its details go far beyond what can be merely typographical, yet regardless, if the Lord Jesus is the temple and Mary is the Eastern Gate then one one can get into the temple even thru Mary.
However, what Scripture says is that believers have "boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus," (Hebrews 10:19) not Mary, as Christ is the only Heavenly intercessor the Holy Spirit speaks of and sends believers to!
Some of what you argue regarding “brothers” and “sisters" has some merit (and i am not opposed to Mary being a perpetual virgin, but to specious arguments for any doctrine), but as regards your assertion that "it was absolutely unheard of in the middle eastern culture that a younger sibling would upbraid and older brother for any reason,"the argument is not John 7:5 has the younger kin upbraiding the Lord, for it says that they simply exhorted the Lord to "go into Judæa, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
But in the end, the only conclusion that can be drawn, based entirely on the Scriptures, is at the least, the belief that Mary did remain a virgin for her entire life lacks the warrant needed for dogma.
That is exactly what I said: Had he divorced her Mary would have been subject to at least ridicule and scorn and possibly stoning, which was the punishment for adultery.Learn to read.